RE: [PATCH 31/37] xen/arm: introduce a helper to parse device tree NUMA distance map

[Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>]

Hi Stefano,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
> Sent: 2021年9月24日 11:05
> To: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>
> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; sstabellini@kernel.org; julien@xen.org;
> Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/37] xen/arm: introduce a helper to parse device
> tree NUMA distance map
> 
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, Wei Chen wrote:
> > A NUMA aware device tree will provide a "distance-map" node to
> > describe distance between any two nodes. This patch introduce a
> > new helper to parse this distance map.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Chen <wei.chen@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  xen/arch/arm/numa_device_tree.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 106 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/numa_device_tree.c
> b/xen/arch/arm/numa_device_tree.c
> > index 7918a397fa..e7fa84df4c 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/arm/numa_device_tree.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/numa_device_tree.c
> > @@ -136,3 +136,109 @@ static int __init fdt_parse_numa_memory_node(const
> void *fdt, int node,
> >
> >      return 0;
> >  }
> > +
> > +
> > +/* Parse NUMA distance map v1 */
> > +static int __init fdt_parse_numa_distance_map_v1(const void *fdt, int
> node)
> > +{
> > +    const struct fdt_property *prop;
> > +    const __be32 *matrix;
> > +    uint32_t entry_count;
> > +    int len, i;
> > +
> > +    printk(XENLOG_INFO "NUMA: parsing numa-distance-map\n");
> > +
> > +    prop = fdt_get_property(fdt, node, "distance-matrix", &len);
> > +    if ( !prop )
> > +    {
> > +        printk(XENLOG_WARNING
> > +               "NUMA: No distance-matrix property in distance-map\n");
> 
> I haven't seen where this is called from yet but make sure to print an
> error here only if NUMA info is actually expected and required, not on
> regular non-NUMA boots on non-NUMA machines.
> 

Only users enable NUMA option and numa_off is false, then Xen can run into
this function (this check is in numa_init). So non-NUMA machines will not
reach here.

> 
> > +        return -EINVAL;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    if ( len % sizeof(uint32_t) != 0 )
> > +    {
> > +        printk(XENLOG_WARNING
> > +               "distance-matrix in node is not a multiple of u32\n");
> > +        return -EINVAL;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    entry_count = len / sizeof(uint32_t);
> > +    if ( entry_count == 0 )
> > +    {
> > +        printk(XENLOG_WARNING "NUMA: Invalid distance-matrix\n");
> > +
> > +        return -EINVAL;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    matrix = (const __be32 *)prop->data;
> > +    for ( i = 0; i + 2 < entry_count; i += 3 )
> > +    {
> > +        uint32_t from, to, distance, opposite;
> > +
> > +        from = dt_next_cell(1, &matrix);
> > +        to = dt_next_cell(1, &matrix);
> > +        distance = dt_next_cell(1, &matrix);
> > +        if ( (from == to && distance != NUMA_LOCAL_DISTANCE) ||
> > +            (from != to && distance <= NUMA_LOCAL_DISTANCE) )
> > +        {
> > +            printk(XENLOG_WARNING
> > +                   "NUMA: Invalid distance: NODE#%u->NODE#%u:%u\n",
> > +                   from, to, distance);
> > +            return -EINVAL;
> > +        }
> > +
> > +        printk(XENLOG_INFO "NUMA: distance: NODE#%u->NODE#%u:%u\n",
> > +               from, to, distance);
> > +
> > +        /* Get opposite way distance */
> > +        opposite = __node_distance(from, to);
> 
> This is not checking for the opposite node distance but...
> 

Ah, yes, it's a mistake. It should be __node_distance(to, from);
> 
> > +        if ( opposite == 0 )
> > +        {
> > +            /* Bi-directions are not set, set both */
> > +            numa_set_distance(from, to, distance);
> > +            numa_set_distance(to, from, distance);
> 
> ...since you set both directions here at once then it is OK. You are
> checking if this direction has already been set which is correct I
> think. But the comment "Get opposite way distance" and the variable name
> "opposite" are wrong.
> 

My above mistake make this mis-understanding:
I want to check the opposite way distance is set or not.
If opposite way distance is not set, I will set both way here.

So I will change " opposite = __node_distance(from, to);" to
" opposite = __node_distance(to, from);". And keep the comment.
How do you think about it?

> 
> > +        }
> > +        else
> > +        {
> > +            /*
> > +             * Opposite way distance has been set to a different value.
> > +             * It may be a firmware device tree bug?
> > +             */
> > +            if ( opposite != distance )
> > +            {
> > +                /*
> > +                 * In device tree NUMA distance-matrix binding:
> > +                 *
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
> > +                 * There is a notes mentions:
> > +                 * "Each entry represents distance from first node to
> > +                 *  second node. The distances are equal in either
> > +                 *  direction."
> > +                 *
> > +                 * That means device tree doesn't permit this case.
> > +                 * But in ACPI spec, it cares to specifically permit
> this
> > +                 * case:
> > +                 * "Except for the relative distance from a System
> Locality
> > +                 *  to itself, each relative distance is stored twice
> in the
> > +                 *  matrix. This provides the capability to describe
> the
> > +                 *  scenario where the relative distances for the two
> > +                 *  directions between System Localities is different."
> > +                 *
> > +                 * That means a real machine allows such NUMA
> configuration.
> > +                 * So, place a WARNING here to notice system
> administrators,
> > +                 * is it the specail case that they hijack the device
> tree
> > +                 * to support their rare machines?
> > +                 */
> > +                printk(XENLOG_WARNING
> > +                       "Un-matched bi-direction! NODE#%u->NODE#%u:%u,
> NODE#%u->NODE#%u:%u\n",
> > +                       from, to, distance, to, from, opposite);
> 
> PRIu32

Yes.

> 
> 
> > +            }
> > +
> > +            /* Opposite way distance has been set, just set this way */
> > +            numa_set_distance(from, to, distance);
> > +        }
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    return 0;
> > +}
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >